The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: email@example.com (StevJensen)
Date: 29 Oct 2002 01:31:17 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: eer
firstname.lastname@example.org (Richard Steven Walz)
>>email@example.com (Richard Steven Walz)
>>So, if you really want to get rid of it(which also seems questionable),
>>why can't you mix the remainder back up with the original talus and put
>>it back where you found it. Overall less radioactive than when you
>U is EASY to get rid of. Pu is NOT.
So what makes Pu hard to get rid of?
>Also, wherever we get water is tested,
>and we are experienced at avoiding deriving city water from radioactive
>springs, and there are a bunch in the southwest. If we start putting
>radioactive stuff back, then we wind up putting both Pu and a host of other
>long-lived isotopes with it, and we risk suddenly finding that we didn't
>REALLY understand the aquifer very well and that we have polluted the shit
>out of massive acquifers upon which human life depends!!!
This is what prompted my question. You took half the radioactivity out of
an area that was already radioactive. What is it that would actually make
matters worse by putting the remainder back?
Even if an aquifer proves to be a problem it seems, at least to me, that
it would be an even bigger problem if you had not done anything at all.
Why won't you get the same brew of isotopes with the stuff sitting right
where it was? The decay paths do not seem to change much if any
with the stuff in a reactor, they just get speed up a lot.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup